Re: [tied] -st-suffix in PIE

-----Original Message-----
From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal [mailto:mcv@...]
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 10:30 AM
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [tied] -st-suffix in PIE

Did anyone mention the etymology proposed in e.g. C.D. Buck's
dictionary, *wik^-tah2 (Mühl.-Endz. 1.585), "house (bird)"?

 Nobody did, and I must admit at least I did that deliberately. Ja:nis Endzeli:ns, along with Kazimieras Bu_ga, rejected the UI-part of the RUKI for Baltic - a point of view successfully overcome in today's Baltistics (at least I am not aware of any Baltists to support it). I'm going to prepare an exposé of Karaliu_nas-Hamp theory (which is approbated in Lithuania and, AFAIK, by the Baltists in other countries, cf. Umberto Dini's overview of today's Baltistics in his _The Baltic languages_), so you'll be able to asset it youself (it's captious analysis of the examples to support the theory that triggered this hen-etymologizing). This negation avoidlessly lead to artificial ad hoc solutions (a` la Burrow's unfamous suffixes helping to stick to one-laryngeal theory), like mai~s^as 'sack' (< '(wine)skin' < 'lambskin; sheep' ) < **moisk^os instead of *moisos (cf., eg, Old Indic mes.a'h. 'lambskin; sheep' < *moisos/*maisos) etc. *k^ in Endzeli:ns *wik^ta: is the same attempt to get rid of *s at any rate. It can't be rejected formally, but I don't believe in the etymology because of its tendentious origin.

 

Sergei